Building proposal for waste incinerator on brown field site in Derby

[capester]

Hello,
Sorry if this is old news to some of you but there has been an ongoing dispute on the building of a waste incinerator in Derby on an old Tannery site. The area has been claimed back by nature and is covered in fruiting trees that are important for birds and teasels also. The main thing is that there is a (was a) small population of common lizards- ironic name as they are nationally scarce and protected by law. In fact this is the only known population in Derby since its discovery last year.
The development company caught around 20 of these lizards and placed them in a totally unsuitable fenced of area in the corner of the site last autumn and provided them with a hibernacula-basically a pile of wood and pvc pipes that offered no protection from the harsh winter we had and left the door wide open for predators such as rats. Low and behold, when a section of the fence was removed to allow them out in the spring there was no sign of the lizards- and still no sign of them today. All in all it looks as if the activities on the site have seriously depleted if not wiped out the population of a nationally scarce and protected species. There has been no further census carried out by either the incinerator company or the local wildlife group (who are suspiciously funded by the company behind the incinerator plant!). Unfortunately the presence of the reptiles is a contentious issue as right minded people such as ourselves will use the knowledge to prevent the site being developed- however there are unfortunately people about who would try to harm the lizards or catch them. Therefore it is not widely reported they are there for fear of compromising them still farther.
The debate rages on and is set for appeal any time now. For more information or to register your concerns please do a web/facebook search for "no incinerator on sinfin lane" (I hope that this is allowed).
Many thanks

[The Woodman]

I've had a look at the RPS Ltd reptile report for the site here.....

http://eplanning.derby.gov.uk/acolne.../28590_228.pdf

and note

1.3 All species of reptiles native to the UK are afforded legal protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Common lizard, grass snake (Natrix natrix) and slow worm are present in Derbyshire. These species are protected in respect to their deliberate killing and injury only. Protection is not extended to their habitat.

p.s Interesting to note that NE refer to additional surveys for reptiles - highlighting slow worms and not lizards in their letter http://eplanning.derby.gov.uk/acolne...ts/29499_2.pdf

which is not what you want to hear in respect of the lizards.

Based on the statement

4.7 An “on site receptor area is shortly to be constructed in one corner of the site. The receptor area will be enclosed in reptile fencing to prevent the reptiles moving back into the site during construction works. Before reptiles are trapped and moved into the receptor area, the habitats within will be managed to provide optimal reptile habitat and hibernacula constructed to provide shelter of the animals during the winter months. On completion of the construction phase of the development, the lizards will be released to populate the soft landscape areas around the perimeter of the new development, and the railway embankments running along the western perimeter of the site. The current post development landscape proposals for the site will be subject to review, and revisions made to maximise habitats favourable to common lizard.

Based on your observations re habitats within the on site receptor area, I would be preparing a submission ready for the appeal.

4.8 It is concluded that provided the above mitigation measures can be completed to high standard, then the impact of the proposed development on the resident lizard population is considered low adverse in the short term during the construction phase and long term negligible.

Do you agree with this conclusion? I doubt it. Your words, "people such as ourselves will use the knowledge to prevent the site being developed" remind us all that the presence of a protected species may not prevent development as the situation is stated in 1.3.

[capester]

Hi Woodman, thank you for your interest in the issue. By "using the knowledge to prevent the site being developed" I meant that this is one reason it shouldn't beand hopefully if we can find enough reasons it won't be. There are human health concerns about the location also and one councillor has even stated on record that this is not the correct location for the plant. Yet still they forge ahead! The report that you refer to in your post is from 2009 and gives the schedule of how the construction was supposed to take shape- with the lizards being released after a phase of building had been completed. None of the building work has been out and they were forced to free any remaining lizards in the spring, they obviously hadn't bargained on such opposition to their project.

If the lizards are still surviving one positive is that the developers haven't caught them again this year and it will soon be too late as they are going to begin hibernation thus delaying any works until spring at the earliest. The reason they caught them last year was due to them thinking of starting the construction over the winter. This didn't happen and they were pressured into removing a bit of the fence to allow any lizards to escape. Why there was not a survey carried out within the fenced area before this happened is a mystery and why the local wildlife trust (in receipt of sponsorship from the developers) had not been to inspect the hibernacula and the enclosure before the lizards were introduced and why in the considerable length of time since the enclosure has been taken down have they failed to carry out any further visits is deeply troubling.

[The Woodman]

Hi capester

There are a significant number of documents attached to the application it took a while to find the reptile report after reading the bat report!

I'm not sure why the wildlife trust had to inspect the hibernacula or the onsite receptor area, I would have thought that the specification was down to the experience of the consultant ecologists alone. It couldn't be a conditioned mitigation as permission was refused. I can't get my head round why it was done before PP was granted as there must have been a reasonable chance it was going to be refused judging by the submissions. Our WT scrutinises PP's and raise any concerns with the relevant planning authority.

Perhaps the WT decided to keep at arms length as their sponsors were involved.

Following these complex proposals can be a bit of a nightmare and from what you say, procedure hasn't been adhered to which might strengthen your submission to some degree if the appeal is allowed.

[capester]

Hello again, we are hoping that due to the way in which the proposers have conducted themselves so far - ie disorganised it will provide a stronger footing for the argument. The consultant ecologists failed to provide a satisfactory hibernacula, I am studying Zoology at uni and it was apparent from 20 feet away that the structure was not fit for purpose- an iguana could fit in there never mind a common lizard! The reason I would have expected the WT to take a vested interest is that they had surveyed the site in the past for signs of lizards and returned when the population was discovered but they have not visited since before the capture of the lizards which seems strange to me.

[Plantzzman]

I have had some experience of the campaign against this proposal as I am the chair of a group fighting the proposal and being interested in wildlife I have placed some of my interest in the common lizards on the site. As a rule 6 party at the public inquiry into this proposal I covered the common lizards in our evidence.
There have been concerns in relation to the wildlife aspect of the case that the wildlife trust gained corporate sponsorship from one of the developers (United Utilities) although this developer has now transfered its interests in the project to another company (SHANKS). I give the wildlife trust credit for requesting surveys to be carried out - they had considered slow worms but got common lizards ! There are a number of documents Woodman on the councils planning website related to the lizards as updates came over time.
What I have learnt is that common lizards - Lacerta Vivipara are protected from intentional harm etc BUT their habitat in a bizarre twist ISNT ! this allows developers to come along and directly threaten protected species because common sense protection - ie protection of habitat loss is missing which cannot be right !
The site in question is owned by the local council who you would think would act to protect locally important biodiversity but instead they are happy to risk such biodiversity in the name of their flawed waste incineration proposal. The site in question - a former brick works and then tannery later became a landfill. Tests in the planning reports highlight high levels of contamnation so surely leaving the site to wildlife is by far the best option instead of opening up a pandoras box of polluted landfill material. This is a haven for wildlife in an industrial area - is nothing safe ?

[Plantzzman]

Having spoken to Natural England in relation to the common lizard population on this site they have now stated they will inform the developer it is NOT best practice to catch the lizards before the result of the planning inquiry in June 2012 - it isnt clear why they were able to do so the first two times that they did.